This chapter presents discussion of the key themes highlighted from results of the study. In addition, the chapter discusses the conclusions, implications, limitation, and
suggestions/recommendations for future research.
Discussion of Themes
In this part of the chapter, I present crucial themes that are very important to be discussed about writing instruction through the lens of WEs in Afghanistan. These major themes have been selected based on findings of the current research, considering research questions, my
enthusiasm for establishing links between the results of the study and what they mean to available published studies in the field of WEs. For these reasons, I established the following themes related to three main thematic areas such as ideology, teaching, and comprehensibility by considering the research questions and analysis of the results. The themes include:
1. Ideology
• Standard Written English Ideology • Incorrect English Ideology
• The Myth of Native Speakerism 2. Teaching
• Pluralistic Approaches Facilitate Learning • Locally Influenced Materials and Curricula
• Decentralization of Education System is Crucial for Incorporating WEs in the Teaching of Writing
3. Comprehensibility
Ideology. This section will discuss teacher participants ideologies regarding both dominant and non-dominant varieties of English. In addition, the section will present
participants’ views about the use of local/regional varieties of English in the teaching of writing in Afghan universities. Three major themes in relation to ideology were identified from the findings of the study (e.g., standard written English ideology, the incorrect English ideology, and the myths of native speakerism). These themes are discussed below.
Standard written English ideology. Even though quantitative data showed that participants/respondents hold positive view for using local/regional varieties of English in writing, but analysis of qualitative data from interview and survey questionnaire revealed that there is a strong tendency among Afghan university teachers towards the use of only standard varieties of English in the teaching of writing. Most of the survey respondents and interview participants in the current study stated that teachers and students should only use the standard varieties of English (e.g., AE or BrE) in writing or the teaching of writing because they are the only acceptable varieties in the world. As one of the respondents (R11) noted, it is pedagogically sound to use local varieties of English in oral communication, but when it comes to writing or teaching of writing, one should only use the standard English norms rather than local/regional Englishes. Similarly, another respondent (R8) believed that only standard English helps students develop their academic writing skills because “standard English is understood and accepted by all” (R8, survey). One of the interview participants also holds a similar perspective, as noted below:
In my point of view, that we should not use different variations of languages, I mean English language in writing because writing is something that is stable and cannot be changeable. Therefore, we should follow one standard of writing. We should not use
different language or different language variations. For example, from the different variation, I can see that we should not use. For example, Indian English, cultural words or expressions, or idioms, or way of writing from Indian into English. it will be better to write it in native English not include from any other language. (P2, interview, 9-16-19)
Scholars in the field of WEs have also confirmed that the ideology of native English and/or standard written norm is still dominant and considered as code for writing not only in the US but also around the world (e.g., Ammon, 2000; Canagarajah, 2006b, Casanave, 2017; Elbow, 2002; Jenkins, 2014; Lee, 2014; Matsuda, 2006; Matsuda & Matsuda, 2010; Saraceni, 2015). However, these scholars have problematized this monolingual approach to teaching English, particularly the teaching of writing and suggest that different varieties of English, local languages, and local cultures should be permitted in ELT, particularly writing instruction.
Ammon (2000) argues that different forms/structures and usage of multilingual speakers should be allowed and welcomed in English writing because it is a linguistic right of every human being. Lee (2014) claims that monolingual approaches are challenging because the cultural values and needs of students, particularly multilingual EL users and speakers of
nondominant Englishes are usually lost in the mix. Other WEs scholars (e.g., Canagarajah, 2011, Horner, Lu, Royster, Trimbur, 2011; Matsuda, 2003) also challenged this commonly believed native speakerism and/or mythical varieties of English (e.g., British and American) from native speaking countries since they do not always align with sociocultural backgrounds of its users. These teaching modals and native varieties do not value local needs, cultural characters and topics, and local languages. Lee (2014) asserts that it is not ethical, realistic, or logical to label native or standard English as the only discourse suitable for writing instruction. She also argues
that non-dominant (e.g., local/regional) varieties of English should be recognized and brought in writing.
Taking available scholarship into consideration, Afghan EFL university teachers should be informed that varieties relevant to native speaking countries or Inner Circle are not the only varieties which have developed standards and are accepted internationally. Other post-colonial varieties of English such as Indian, Nigerian, Singaporean, and Pakistani have also developed standards like Welsh, Irish, and Scottish standard English (Baumgartner, 2006). According to the field WEs, the majority of English users in the mentioned countries use their standards/norms developed within those contexts. In addition, their awareness should also be raised that there are many L2 writers of English who successfully mesh (use) non-dominant varieties of English in their published academic papers (Canagarajah, 2006b). Canagarajah adds that there are many writers who used non-dominant varieties of English which have been well received by English users. So, training students in both dominant and non-dominant varieties of English will help them be successful in local, regional, and international level. For example, a great number of students receive educational scholarships from different countries of the world. If they know Indian English, they will be highly successful in their higher education in India. The same is true for all other English-speaking countries. As it is extremely complicated to teach all the varieties of English in the writing class, writing teachers need to heighten their awareness of students’ needs, literary practices, places where the students will use their English, and instructional constraints of their context. After conducting need analysis and collecting necessary information, they can choose the varieties of English students need to learn and use them in their writing.
The incorrect English ideology.Another theme that emerged from qualitative data from both survey questionnaire and interviews was that Afghan EFL university teachers believe that
local/regional varieties of English are incorrect because they are the deviated forms of standard English. This theme also pertains to my first research question. They stated that they hesitate to use local/regional varieties of English in their teaching as well as do not allow their students to use them in their writing because they are incorrect forms of English. As one of the respondents (R3) said that he will not permit his students to use local/regional Englishes in their writing because “student will use them in international context as well. Correcting them later make much difficulties”. Quirk (1990) also claimed that non-dominant varieties of English are deficits. He argued that these varieties of English are not permissible models for teaching since they are improperly learned languages of native (standard) English forms. He further adds that teachers, learners, and speakers in Outer Circle countries have to be in constant touch with speakers of native-speaking countries.
The above finding seems interesting because when respondents/participants of the present study were asked about their understanding of the concept of WEs, they provided detailed
information about it which indicated that they are aware of the concept. However, considering non-dominant varieties of English as incorrect despite their knowledge shows that they are not informed of the debates about error and feature in the field of WEs. Scholars in the field of WEs have argued that non-dominant varieties of English are not deficits rather innovations and/or variation (e.g., Kachru, 1983, Kachru,1991; Low, 2010; McLellan, 2010; Saraceni, 2015; Widdowson, 1994). Saraceni (2015) states that deviation of the other varieties of EL needs to be admissible and accepted, no matter whether it is a feature of a new variety of EL or
pronunciation. Similarly, Kachru (1991) argued against Quirk’s concern. Kachru viewed non- native varieties of EL as creative/innovative. He added that being in constant touch with NSs is not applicable to the varieties that are institutionalized in the contexts. He provided two reasons
for this: first, limited resources and the vast amount of input from the local variety, and a large number of EL teachers. These reasons make it impossible for the teachers to be in continuous contact with the NL. He further asserted that what Quirk would consider as deficit might be considered as difference based on creativity, linguistic, cultural contact, and essential sociolinguistic realities of identity in a global context. According to him, English belongs to those who use it in different contexts.
This finding suggests that non-dominant varieties are not used in the teaching of writing in Afghan universities. Therefore, taking the above scholarship into consideration, it can be suggested that Afghan EFL university teachers should acknowledge and accept that non- dominant varieties of English such as Indian, Singaporean, and Pakistani English are not incorrect or deficits, but innovative forms of EL. They should not only impose dominant varieties of English in the teaching of writing. Besides teaching the dominant conventions and codes, they should also raise learners’ awareness regarding other varieties and tell them that deviation from dominant codes is a natural process by language users and that some deviations make crucial social meaning (Matsuda & Matsuda, 2010). It is important to mention that the above literature and recommendations should not be misinterpreted that all the deviations are accepted as innovations or variations. Afghan EFL teachers should distinguish the “boundaries between what works and what doesn’t” (Matsuda & Matsuda, 2010, p. 372). In other words, they should know how much of a deviation from standard code is considered as an innovation and how much is considered as an error. Deviating too much from dominant norms may hinder the meaning and may make it unacceptable. They also should make the students aware of these boundaries between what works (innovation, variation, or creativity) and what does not work (deficits or error). Accordingly, teacher training programs and/or professional development
programs are needed to enhance the understanding of Afghan EFL teachers regarding what works and what does not.
The myth of native speakerism. A least common theme that was found in the data collected from the survey questionnaire was ‘the linguistic superiority of NSs over NNSs’. This theme relates to my first research question. According to one of the survey respondents (R12), NSs are better writers than NNSs, as he stated “I would prefer AE for improving academic writing skills. Upon my study and research, the NSs of a particular language can write well than any other else”. This finding agrees with Saraceni’s (2015) claim that the supposed linguistic superiority prevails in ESL and EFL contexts. In other words, users of English in these contexts believe that NSs from Inner Circle countries are linguistically superior to those who acquired English as an ESL or EFL. Saraceni added that this ideology does not only dominate in general teaching and job markets but also in academic discourse. For example, editors of academic journals suggest that their manuscripts should be edited and revised by NSs. The notion of linguistic superiority is associated with the perceived ideology of native speakerism. Holiday (2005) termed linguistic superiority as ‘native speakerism’—he explained that ‘native
speakerism’ is a belief that has discriminatory consequences for NNSs. In addition, Kramsch (1997) maintains that native speakerism has nothing to do with education and birth, however, it is accepted by the group that caused the discrepancy between NSs and NNSs.
Professional development programs, workshops, trainings, and seminars are needed to inform Afghan EFL teachers about NS ideology which may be helpful for them to see NNSs as equal to NSs and shift their profession from a prevailing ideology of native-speakerism towards an inclusive prospect that endorses and encourages diversity (Braine, 1999; Canagarajah, 1999; Casanave, 2017; Davies, 2003; Holliday, 2005; Jenkins, 2014; Matsuda & Matsuda, 2010;
Phillipson, 1992; Saraceni, 2015).It is important to mention that writing fluently and accurately, particularly in academic discourse, has no connection with nativeness or non-nativeness.
Accurate writing is developed through study, metalinguistic awareness, and practice, “none of which is even remotely related to whichever language(s) someone happens to have been exposed to in childhood. Expert writers and NSs are completely unrelated” (Saraceni, 2015, p. 177). There are numerous ESL and EFL writers whose writing is highly celebrated, well-received, and taught in the world’s top-ranking universities (Canagarajah, 2006c). Therefore, until and unless Afghan EFL teachers, scholars, writers, and learners do not end this ideological belief, they will always be surrounded and influenced by the dominant culture, power, and politics. The local cultures, values, variations, beliefs, and social perspectives will not be reflected in the writing. In short, it is indispensable that teachers break down this hegemony, start writing in English, and bring in their own contextual cultural values, varieties, and dialects that meet the needs of students. They should also prepare their students towards more inclusive ways of writing which accept more diversity. This will help students be successful not only in the national sphere but also in the regional and international sphere.
Teaching. Key themes related to the area of teaching will be discussed in this section. Two crucial themes related to the area of teaching were highlighted from results of the study. As the main goal of this study is to inform the teaching of writing in Afghan universities, therefore, discussing these themes in connection with literature is very important. These are discussed below.
Pluralistic approaches facilitate learning. The most common theme across data of the present study is the facilitation of learning and students’ better understanding through integrating
pluralistic approaches (e.g., code-switching between the TL and NL) in the teaching of writing. The theme under discussion here mostly pertains to my first research question.
The respondents/participants of the present study wrote that they use pluralistic approaches and/or code-switching between TL and NL to promote students learning. They pointed out different situations in which they use multilingual approaches (code-switching) for the facilitation of learning and better understanding of learners. During writing instruction, they exercise language variation and/or switch codes between TL and NLs to explain complex issues and meanings of vocabulary. One of the respondents stated that “in case of complexity of meaning and context, I use variation in my medium of teaching since it is a recommended tip in post method era” (R13, survey). Similarly, another respondent (R7) said that “sometimes I had to explain issues in native Pashto language that are difficult for students to understand”. This
finding seems to be in line with the findings of previous studies. For example, Shartiely (2016) stated that code-switching is a fundamental component in the teaching practices in Tanzania and it is employed in the teaching to facilitate learning. Similarly, Malik (2014) investigated the effectiveness of code-switching in teaching English at the intermediate level in Pakistan. According to Malik, 72.4% of the learners in his research agreed that using the code-switching strategy helps them learn vocabulary and 64.8% noted that it facilitates the learning of grammar. Additionally, participants of the current study wrote that they apply the pluralistic approach and/or NL in writing instruction to explain cultural issues. Macaro (2005) also stated that speakers (teachers) find it easy to explain and/discuss cultural and linguistic topics by using code-switching. Furthermore, participants of the current study noted that they apply pluralistic approaches and/or switch codes between TL and NLs to facilitate better teaching and learning conditions for low proficiency level students. This goes hand in hand with Bista’s (2010)
argument that learners’ low level of language proficiency in the TL is one of the reasons for using language variation and/or code-switching in ELT.
The above finding suggests that most of the Afghan EFL university teachers hold a positive view about using the pluralistic approach in the sense of code-switching between TL and NLs in the teaching of writing. There is a rich body of scholarship in the field of WEs in support of code-switching between TL and NL (e.g., Barbour, 2002; Elbow, 1999; Littlewood & Yu, 2011). Littlewood & Yu (2011) argued that bi/multilingual contexts where the principle goal of learning is bi/multilingual competence, elimination of their L1 may negatively impact their sense of identity and sense of wellbeing. It means that these researchers favor the use of language variation in the teaching practice which can also be implied for writing instruction. In addition, Elbow (1999) recommended a code-switching strategy for writing instruction. He argued that students should bring in their local languages in their initial draft of their writing. However, they should use only standard English when publishing their papers. Barbour (2002) also supported the use of code-switching in oral communication but positioned against its use in writing.
Considering my respondents'/participants' beliefs and existing scholarship, code- switching between TL and NLs and/or integrating pluralistic approaches in the teaching of writing provides better learning and teaching conditions in the classroom. Simply put, code- switching is an effective pedagogical approach to writing instruction that ease the learning burden of the students.
The theme discussed above also suggests that most of the teachers who are participants of this study are not aware of code-mixing/meshing strategy that was first offered by Young (2004) and then suggested and promoted by Canagarajah, (2006b, 2011, 2012) Young, (2004, 2007, 2011). Bokamba (1988) defined code-mixing as mixing or placing different linguistic units
(affixes, words, phrases, clauses) from grammatical systems of the two different languages in speech context or sentence. In the code-meshing strategy for writing, Canagarajah (2006b) motivates novice scholars, writers, and students to bring in local languages in their academic articles not only in their first draft but also in the published ones. In addition to using code- switching, Afghan university teachers should also practice code-meshing in their writing instruction. It is significant to highlight that teachers should first be informed of this strategy either by self-awareness through reading published articles on this approach or through
professional development programs which include the topic of code-meshing—this can be done by the MoHE in Afghanistan or other organizations that conduct teachers’ professional
development programs.
Locally influenced materials and curricula. In most ESL and in almost all EFL countries, teaching models and materials depend on dominant varieties of English from Inner